What's up with scientists thinking everybody should be a scientist? Honestly, this quote is kind of dumb. As a writer and philosopher, I can alter it pretty simply:
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born free thinker and imaginative philosopher, and then we beat it out of them by institutionalization and telling kids to simply believe what is taught to them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for questioning knowledge still in tact."
Honestly, and no disrespect to scientists or Sagan, once you encounter scholars in a liberal environment you will find that scientists and scholars with a background in the sciences are the most close-minded scholars and professors out there. Their stubborn refusal for anything not to be accounted by science alienates thoughts about logic, ethics, or even why physics works and how the laws of nature came to be.

I'm open for anything supernatural, I honestly want there to be something, but they've just simply got to prove it, look at James Randi, one million dollars to anyone who prove their claims of anything supernatural, may take you an hour to prove it, buuuut, nope.

I honestly can't blame someone to get skeptical when it comes to stuff you'd basicly call carnival tricks that fools people of their money and health being practiced for thousands of years.

I'm not talking about supernatural, I am talking about metaphysical There could be many things that are not physical that are still natural, yet they are discounted by science. Logic and logical truths are great examples. Did logic arise from the brain as it evolved, or can the evolved brain simply use logic? And if the brain can only use logic, why do logical truths exist? Why is 2+2 4? Of course you can say "well if you have 2 things and then 2 more you have 4 things" but that is just demonstrating the truth. Why is it a truth? How could it possibly be a truth? How can something that cannot be empirically tested by true? Modern science is absolutely bound to materialism, but what if materialism is false in any part at all (which it appears it is)?

Finally, let me say this: What we know of science and our world is thro our senses. We have our senses thro our sensory organs. Our sensory organs have evolved. So, then, what if there are senses we do not yet have? There could be multitudes of unexplored areas of the universe simply because we cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste them yet. So now science is not only bound by the material, it is also bound by the human body and its capacity to know.

There ARE senses we don't have, and they have been explored empirically through scientific research, such as the ability to see infrared light with the naked eye, or echolocation (although some humans do adapt with echolocation after going blind). We know that senses exist that we do not directly or normally possess.
Also, logic is a more difficult subject, but with regards to the idea that 2 + 2 = 4 (which I'm preeeetty sure is true), that is only true insofar as we have constructed a logical mathematical system in which 2 represents what 2 represents, and 4 represents what 4 represents, and + means what it means. For example, if + meant we should subtract, or 4 had the same meaning as 3, then that mathematical proposition would be false. The logical truth of that mathematical statement is dependent upon the human construction involved in mathematics, although said mathematical truths obviously do exist independent of our minds (adding 2 rocks to 2 rocks does give you 4 rocks, but we use numbers to understand this).

I agree that philosophy is definitely vital (unlike many people and intellectuals today) to the human understanding of the world, and science itself is nothing more than the application of a particular philosophy of knowledge (empiricism), and yes, there is definitely a bias in favour of science, people who view science as being "the answer" to every human question. But it IS definitely a viable source for information regarding the way the world works.

Excellent response, friend. I do not wish to deny science as a valid source of information, I just wish to not include it as the canon or measuring rod. There is a quote that says (I am paraphrasing) "When science begins grasping things of a transcendent and non-physical variety, the expansions science will make will be historic." The study of psychology is the beginning of this, but it is just the cusp.

Ever read 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'? Sounds up your street for what you've just said about yourself. Your last paragraph reminded me a bit of that, the main character constantly has struggles with his desire for logic and reason, how it's flawed and how to reconcile the 'classic' and 'romantic' schools of thought.

I think the quote is about curiosity. The desire to find out exactly how things work is born within us and once we grow up starts to shift into simply accepting reality as it is without questioning it at all.

As we grow older and learn what things are made for, we stop looking for unusual uses. We become shaped by what is taught to us in school and don't search for different answers.

A grown up knows about 15-20 uses for a melon, a genius 200+. Nearly any kid knows about the same amount. The number starts dropping once the kids enter school...

It's not about the profession. Every profession has great and ****** people in it.
It's about the idea of being a scientist, which basically everybody can be.

To be fair, the same thing occurs with language; we are born with the potential to learn any language, but, as we are generally constrained within a culture which utilizes one primary language and are brought up around it, we become adjusted to that one language and, by the time opportunities to learn other languages become available, that linguistic "sponge" is generally gone and learning languages takes much more effort.

I think the same thing is true of our knowledge; children are generally very absorptive of the ideas taught to them by others, and, despite the natural curiosity of children, the ideas that their parents, etc. teach them direct their concept of the universe in a particular direction and cut them off from their natural curiosity.

This might have some common evolutionary function - the absorption of values, ideas, etc. at an early age guarantees survival and prosperity within the group to which said values belong.

It's depressing, considering our society and the institutions (family, schools, etc.) are often inadequate in imbuing children with constructive values and just end up constraining them and narrowing their perception in harmful ways (parental authority on issues can act as a deterrent to independent thinking, as the parent's will is generally viewed as being above the child's as a rule both by society at large as well as by the children themselves). I don't think, however, that's it's purely an institutional phenomena... I think there's something instinctual to it, unfortunately.

Well, it's proven that there is only a small time window in which children can learn all the phonemes of a language and after that it's very hard to learn them.
I am not sure if this has been done on the diverse thinking I talked about.

And I am highly in doubt there is that window for curiosity.
I just think the way school teaches us "there is one answer, you have it right or wrong" hinders that natural curiosity.

Socialization certainly serves a function similar to curtailing thinking, albeit that isn't its primary goal; I wouldn't say there's anything directly corresponding to narrowing thought patterns. I just feel that, in a sense, there is an instinctual cause to that curiosity being pulled down, and it's the socialization and the way it affects most people - by imprinting modes of thought, values, beliefs,etc., the human is ensured of its survival within its given social unit, whereas if that thought-constraining didn't occur it would be more likely to be in danger or disarray because the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and the group's would cause conflict.

I think that's part of the reason WHY the way schools work affects us the way it does, is what I'm saying.

I can see your point, but... now that we know how it affects us badly (the environment that would need straight believing ONE answer isn't given anymore)... wouldn't it be time to get rid of that way of teaching and find a workaround?

I agree, I'm not at all suggesting it to be a good thing, I'm just saying that it's not simply a phenomena specific to our society; our society's way of constraining thinking is in many ways part of a more basic evolutionary process. I feel it to be bad as well.

That's because most scientists only believe in things that there is evidence for and can be proven through the scientific method.

I know there are some religious scientists, but things like "why physics works and how the laws of nature came to be" are the things that scientists try to find out through testing and finding evidence, rather than just saying "eh, I dunno, God did it."

I don't think he's implying an actual scientist, as in, not every kid is born a geologist, physicist, astrophysicist, chemist, etc., but every kid is born with natural skepticism and an inherent drive to search for the truth.